President Obama wants to prevent thousands of employees, especially in swing-state Virginia, from being told that they are going to be laid off due to Department of Defense funding cuts. Because of the timing of the cuts, those notices would have been sent to employees just prior to the election in November. The man who signed those funding cuts into law would like to avoid that.
When the administration first proposed this idea back in June, defense contractors patiently explained to the reelection-obsessed President that there is a law, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act of 1988, that requires federal contractors to tell employees 60 days in advance of expected layoffs. . Companies that fail to meet their obligations under the WARN Act can be sued by their former employees. Defense contractors indicated that they would not be ignoring their legal duty under the WARN Act.
"Sequestration," as the policy wonks termed it, was intended to be such an obvious disaster that it would spur Obama and Congress to work together to solve their differences. Like many bright ideas from Washington, D.C., it has failed miserably. As a result, many defense contractors should be preparing to issue layoff notices. The Obama administration's solution for these companies -- and for Obama's electoral hopes in Virginia -- was tucked in the Friday guidance: Simply don't warn employees that they're about to be fired and the Department of Labor will pay the legal bills after fired employees sue for violating the WARN Act.
Obama is asking these companies to break the law and obligating the taxpayers to foot the bill. Ironically, the WARN Act is just the sort of employee protection that Democrats have traditionally championed. But that went right out the window the minute it complicated a Democrat's reelection effort.

4 more years ? ya right

tylerdolphin

10-09-2012, 02:44 PM

Its just part of his plan to get the entire country on welfare. Dont sweat it. I checked the math. It works, trust me. No link needed. Just take my word for it.

phins_4_ever

10-09-2012, 03:46 PM

President Obama wants to prevent thousands of employees, especially in swing-state Virginia, from being told that they are going to be laid off due to Department of Defense funding cuts. Because of the timing of the cuts, those notices would have been sent to employees just prior to the election in November. The man who signed those funding cuts into law would like to avoid that.
When the administration first proposed this idea back in June, defense contractors patiently explained to the reelection-obsessed President that there is a law, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act of 1988, that requires federal contractors to tell employees 60 days in advance of expected layoffs. . Companies that fail to meet their obligations under the WARN Act can be sued by their former employees. Defense contractors indicated that they would not be ignoring their legal duty under the WARN Act.
"Sequestration," as the policy wonks termed it, was intended to be such an obvious disaster that it would spur Obama and Congress to work together to solve their differences. Like many bright ideas from Washington, D.C., it has failed miserably. As a result, many defense contractors should be preparing to issue layoff notices. The Obama administration's solution for these companies -- and for Obama's electoral hopes in Virginia -- was tucked in the Friday guidance: Simply don't warn employees that they're about to be fired and the Department of Labor will pay the legal bills after fired employees sue for violating the WARN Act.
Obama is asking these companies to break the law and obligating the taxpayers to foot the bill. Ironically, the WARN Act is just the sort of employee protection that Democrats have traditionally championed. But that went right out the window the minute it complicated a Democrat's reelection effort.

4 more years ? ya right

And here comes fact check from......::drum roll: ....Fox News:

Mitt Romney solely blamed President Barack Obama on Monday for potential defense cuts that Republicans in Congress worked out with the White House and Democrats and left the misimpression that Obama has ignored free trade initiatives. A closer look at some of the Republican presidential nominee's statements in his foreign policy speech:
ROMNEY: "I will roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military."
THE FACTS: "Arbitrary" defense cuts do not belong to Obama alone but also to congressional Republicans, including his vice presidential running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan. The first round of cuts in projected defense spending is the result of a bipartisan deal in August 2011 between Congress and the White House to wrestle down the deficit. Unless a new budget deal is reached in time, additional spending cuts will begin in January across government, and the cost to the Pentagon would be $500 billion over a decade. Lawmakers are working to avoid that. Separately, Obama wants to slow the growth of military spending, now that the war in Iraq is ended and the war in Afghanistan is drawing to a close. The Pentagon's budget, including war costs, is $670 billion this year, or about 18 percent of total federal spending. Even setting aside the costs of the wars, military spending has more than doubled since 2001.
At its heart, Romney's statement marks a disagreement with Obama over the proper level of military spending but also skips past a deficit-reduction deal that he recently criticized Republicans in Congress for negotiating.

So let's put this together:
Republicans and Democrats put together a half-a$$ budget-cut proposal which is signed by Obama. But Obama is the bad guy? Ryan not. He was the leading voice in these negotiations last year.
The whole deal if not for further solution calls for 1.2 Trillion cuts across the board aka Sequestration.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/880611-what-sequestration-means-for-defense

The job creators in the defense industry threaten with mass layoffs and closings beginning in January because the government will tab the bill for litigation and liabilities.
Now, the threat is out. No secret.

The WH issues a memo advising that any notices for these mass layoffs are counter productive because the budget cuts are not set in stone. Republicans, Democrats and the WH know quite well that this Sequestration is a killer for the economy. But it was the extreme right who held the government hostage last year.

The reason for the memo is simple: it simply states that it is premature because if further budget talks happen and another solution is found the cuts may not be as steep or shifted differently. Congress and the President (whoever it will be) may decide on a different course of action and that would render the Sequestration as signed into law as the Budget Control Act last year useless.
Further more the memo simply advises the defense industry that not the government but the contractors would be liable for litigation and liability costs associated with these mass layoffs. The memo advises and does not tell you to do anything.

Original memo:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-19.pdf

So what do the job creators do? They decide to hold of not only on the notifications but on the entire layoff procedure and take the wait and see approach.

Job creators threaten with massive layoffs right before the election because government pays associated costs. That makes the job creators socialists.
Then being told 'no no, no money from the government for associated costs' and the job creators become lousy job holders.

It is funny how this works. In an attempt to make a profit they counted on government funds while laying off employees. Not telling anybody that they were essentially seeking a bailout from the government they are trying to make it a political issue. Let's forget that this whole Budget Control Act was created in the midget mind of our would-like-to-be VP Ryan.
Romney with Ryan trying to push political gain on their own crap, the defense industry marching with them in goose step formation and when the WH advises and says it is not so it is all Obama's fault and he is acting against the law. As a matter of fact they acted on and will act on behalf of the law as it was written way before Obama took the Presidency.

The Budget Control Act is the A-Typical example of a do-nothing Congress in which the extreme right of the Republicans controlled the outcome (and then bitch about the outcome).